When Equipment Has Gone Too Far

[storm319]

Well, I agree defining the parameters of change would be the most difficult part but really not insurmountable,We have a max COR, we can have a min/max XXX for the "Tour" ball. As to why, there's plenty but it's a dead horse I'll stop beating for brevity, As to adoption and such, not a big deal, most amateurs do not play a tour level ball now nor did they ever but if you did, it's your money, who cares.

 

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might. For 2018 or next few, things look positive for those. Better economy, good stable of talent, Tiger,etc but when the Boomers stop playing, well not so sure where things will be at. You might say," ah, who cares about them" but seat of pants says they've been and continue to be the bedrock of participation. So it leaves us with what do the young like? From what I've seen, the more difficult and dangerous is where they gravitate. So there's that too.

 

Hitting 330 w/a higher spinning initial launched ball is way more difficult than hitting it with one lower. Apples to apples it just is.Is it necessary or would it work in terms of alleviating courses from redesigns? Yeah, easily. Will they do it? Doubt it for now.

 

The problem with attempting to restrict an effect is that there are far more variables at play. The current distance standard is flawed because it is attempting to measure the effect in an attempt to restrict a certain group of people. The current swing variables for the distance standard test is 120 mph club head speed, 10* LA, and around 2500 rpm spin. Under these conditions the ball cannot carry over 320 yards. However, what will the ball do under 15* LA and 1800 rpm at the same swing speed? The inherent flaw is the assumption that the effect is equitable across all other swing variable combinations. Without a more robust evaluation and different standards for different sets of variables, certain sets of swing variables could have an advantage over others which I guarantee the elite golfers will flock to leaving us to argue over the same thing years after any short sighted rollback.

 

Also, any rollback will be on all balls, not just "tour" balls (differentiation at this point is really only based on cover material anyways).

[new2g0lf]

NEW2Golf-

 

 

newsflash... we ALL have selfish agendas.... come on.... that at least cannot be argued with a straight face

 

In many cases you're correct, but in this case the groups of people I called out have the agenda, the rest of us are trying to prevent the execution of their agenda. If you consider maintaining status quo an agenda, then I won't argue the point with you.

[Tyler1putt]

Several great posts from TOM.

 

I do however have a question regarding the swing speed increase. I completely agree with the top guys are athletes now but is it not easier to swing the new gear faster ? Have the newer more aerodynamic clubs contributed to swing speed at all ?

 

This is a great question I'd love to hear from Mr. Wishon on. My new Epic head let me go to a much lighter shaft with the same spin and I picked up 2 mph. Do Turbolators and Boeing-designed drivers matter at all?

 

Great post and great question.

 

Tagged him so he might see it.

 

 

OK, let's talk turb-o-lators or other such aerodynamic swoops and protrusions on heads. If you've seen any of the support video marketing for these things, one thing many of the companies do is to show the head in a wind tunnel. They make their point by showing how the protrusion elements make the air travel more smoothly over the head, causing less drag. Admittedly it is very easy to look at this and think that it could have a difference on the speed of the clubhead at impact.

 

Now let's think about how a clubhead travels through the air when being swung. Mainly ask yourself this question - for how long does the clubhead travel through the air with the club face going directly into the air toward the target ? The answer is about 0.15 secs, if that.

 

Think about it. As you make the backswing, your body rotates and so do your hands as they grip the club. The result is that the clubhead itself has rotated about 90* to get to its position at the top of the backswing. Now it has to come back down. During the downswing the clubhead now has to reverse this rotation to get back to impact with the face pointing at the target. some 80-90% of the time the clubhead is accelerating and gaining speed on the downswing, it is not the face that is leading the way through the air. It is the rounded back of the heel that is leading the way for the clubhead through the air.

 

And then finally, in the very last split second the face completes its rotation back around to finally travel the last 6" with the face plowing straight through the air. That's the only time the turbolator protrusions are positioned to have anything to do with air flowing over the head. In fact, you can make a point that during the first 3/4's of the downswing when the clubface is not even close to being pointed at the target, in this position the turbolator protrusions are IMPEDING the air flow because their streamlined shapes are angled away from the target which should DISRUPT the air flow.

 

PineStreet, any time a golfer gets a higher speed with a different club, you have to look at this like a scientist to come up with the reason(s). To do that requires listing every possible spec or feature that is different between the new and old driver that could possibly affect swing speed. What's the total weight difference? What's the asembled club MOI difference? What's the loft, really? What's the swingweight difference? What's the balance point difference? What's the bend profile difference in the shafts and does one better fit the golfer's swing characteristics and especially, better fit the golfer's FEEL preference(s)? Until you know that every single one of those things is identical, you cannot attribute a performance difference to something like a turbolator.

 

Besides, when you realize and think about what I just said in the explanation of the position of the clubhead during the swing, does it make sense to you that little protrusions which are but 18" tall which only align to the target for the split of a split second could possibly reduce drag enough to gain 2 mph? Very, very, very doubtful.

 

But hey, they look good, they look cool, and the smoke streaming over them in the wind tunnel sure looks compelling. But sorry, machts nichts.

 

Though I will tell you one component for which a raised type protrusion could have a little more of an effect. Shafts. Ever look at the antenna on cars today and see that it has spiraled protrusions sticking up off the shaft of the antenna? That is there to keep the antenna stable when the car is traveling down the road at 60-70-80 mph. Without them the antenna will vibrate and wobble all over the place because of the effect of the air flow at that speed over a smooth shaft.

 

Do that with a golf shaft and you can make a small difference in delivery of the clubhead to the ball. Problem is, the USGA figured this out too and does have a rule prohibiting this on shafts !! (A shaft shall be circular in cross section) And BTW that rule also nixes the even larger potential of an oval shaped shaft.

 

Thank you again Tom

[Nard_S]

 

 

Really.

 

327.9

300

302.6

312.2

300.4

310.7

 

That's the driving distances listed on the PGA for round 4 of the PGA at Quail Hollow in 2017 for the top 5 and ties. Winner at the top. That's short?

 

Edit; these numbers are for the week not the 4th round.

 

On a bunch of holes guys were laying back to 290 specifically because of the Bermuda rough.

[Nard_S]

Well, I agree defining the parameters of change would be the most difficult part but really not insurmountable,We have a max COR, we can have a min/max XXX for the "Tour" ball. As to why, there's plenty but it's a dead horse I'll stop beating for brevity, As to adoption and such, not a big deal, most amateurs do not play a tour level ball now nor did they ever but if you did, it's your money, who cares.

 

This "issue" probably will never be seriously looked at so long as the industry is healthy. If ratings go down, or participation drops a lot, they might. For 2018 or next few, things look positive for those. Better economy, good stable of talent, Tiger,etc but when the Boomers stop playing, well not so sure where things will be at. You might say," ah, who cares about them" but seat of pants says they've been and continue to be the bedrock of participation. So it leaves us with what do the young like? From what I've seen, the more difficult and dangerous is where they gravitate. So there's that too.

 

Hitting 330 w/a higher spinning initial launched ball is way more difficult than hitting it with one lower. Apples to apples it just is.Is it necessary or would it work in terms of alleviating courses from redesigns? Yeah, easily. Will they do it? Doubt it for now.

 

The problem with attempting to restrict an effect is that there are far more variables at play. The current distance standard is flawed because it is attempting to measure the effect in an attempt to restrict a certain group of people. The current swing variables for the distance standard test is 120 mph club head speed, 10* LA, and around 2500 rpm spin. Under these conditions the ball cannot carry over 320 yards. However, what will the ball do under 15* LA and 1800 rpm at the same swing speed? The inherent flaw is the assumption that the effect is equitable across all other swing variable combinations. Without a more robust evaluation and different standards for different sets of variables, certain sets of swing variables could have an advantage over others which I guarantee the elite golfers will flock to leaving us to argue over the same thing years after any short sighted rollback.

 

Also, any rollback will be on all balls, not just "tour" balls (differentiation at this point is really only based on cover material anyways).

 

The same issue(s) with standards happens now. no big deal. Besides very few people actually play high spin balls now. Pro Vx is not the big seller now with amateurs. Balata was not the big seller back when.

[TomWishon]

 

 

I didn't mean to suggest you wanted to see a Driver head shrinkage. I just meant that the pro player also saw a benefit to the forgiving heads that they play. So at least we are saying the same thing on the iron front. Especially from blade to cb.

 

On Driver. I agree with you mostly. And I maybe wrong for that. Lol. But here are my thoughts. If tour players never see a real benefit to forgiving Driver heads. Then why do they all play one ? Is it to promote sales? If so I guess I see that. But if not. I would think several would prefer a smaller head for same reasons so many players still play a blade. Workability. Looks and ease of squaring the face and possibly to add clubhead speed ...I recall Adam Scott claiming 4 mph using the 400cc 915d5 Head ..but later swapped back to d2 saying " I'm just giving up too much dispersion wise with the smaller head ". ( paraphrasing from memory ).

 

All that is in question form even if I lack punctuation to show that at times. I'm only trying pick your brain. Not prove you wrong. Thats more so for others who seemed to take offense last time I replied to you.

 

From my experience and way of thinking, the ONLY reason a tour player (or anyone) would choose to play a 3w or 4w off the tee on a par-4 or 5 is to take advantage of the much shorter length of the fwy wood to achieve more control to ensure being in play. This was true even before the rest of the industry figured out how to make steel fwy wood heads with the same COR as a titanium driver. But ever since the mainstream companies began to offer high COR fwys, people don't really give up all that much distance when hitting a fwy off the tee while gaining accuracy and confidence from the shorter length vs the driver.

 

The off center hit capability of fwys will never ever be close to that of a driver simply because the much smaller size of the fwy drops the MOI tremendously lower than today's 460cc drivers. But at those shorter lengths, most people will hit the ball more on center with the fwy than the driver so the MOI is not that important. For the pros with their speed and skill, they don't need any off center hit forgiveness in a fwy wood to hit the ball 280-300 yds with a 15-16* loft head at 43".

 

For those with <110mph speed. you can make a pretty strong case to question why they would ever want to hit a driver. Most of these guys could hit 3w/7 iron on a 450-470 yd hole, those with 120 speed could be hitting 3w/PW, so why mess with a driver that is longer than the 3w? I guess because even they want to hit the least club possible into the green.

[Sean2]

Henrik Stenson doesn't seem to hit that many drivers off the tee, and Ariya Jutanugarn doesn't even carry a driver.

[TomWishon]

 

 

Tom, I suggested in an earlier post that perhaps balls could be made to have consistent spin profiles in that a ball that has high spin around the green would also then have to have high spin with the driver, same with low spin balls and then a mid-spin ball between the two. This would sort of rule out imposed bifurcation in that you could choose to play the same ball as anyone else, the only limit being your own skill level.

 

In my mind this would help to identify the outstanding ballstrikers as they would still be able to hit the high spin ball long but also straight. Any amount of side spin would cause the ball to curve offline with obviously the high spin balls deviating further. The low spin balls would still be long with less deviation but would lose a certain level of control around the green. Recreational players who ‘need’ distance in their games would not be penalised as they could choose the low spin ball, with the short game taking a slight hit in the feel stakes.

 

To me this approach would have the minimum impact on current clubs, would possibly identify the best pro golfers and would minimise the impact on recreational players with a possible outcome that overall driving distance averages come down. Obviously this would not work if all pro golfers hit the ball that well that they do not put significant amounts of side spin on the ball on long shots? Is this something that you have experience of and can comment on?

 

I don't really perceive that the rulemaking body's or the top players' angst about the ball these days has much of anything to do with spin capability of balls today. I read this as being all about distance. These guys for whatever reasons just do not like the fact that the longest par-4 holes should not be over 500 yards. And they don't like that the 475 yd par-4's have been reduced to being nothing more than a driver/short iron or even wedge when in the past they were always a driver/long iron. Those who are in favor of a ball change want to do it to reduce how far these guys hit it so they can, 1) keep the old classic courses built in the 20th century from being rendered totally obsolete, and 2) so they can still have holes the pros must hit long irons into as a further test of skill, but without having to make those holes be 275 yd par-3's, 540 yd par-4's or 700 yard par-5's.

 

That's my take on it.

 

The spin issue is dead in my mind anyway ever since the complete FAILURE of the USGA's 2010 rule change pertaining to scorelines on clubs of 25* loft and higher.

 

If you remember, the USGA got a burr up their backsides about what the media called "Bomb and gouge". You know, players who "bomb" it 320 into the rough and "gouge" a wedge up to 10 feet and make birdie or kick in pars. They believed if they changed the grooves so the players could not spin the ball nearly as much from the rough, this would "solve the problem."

 

The USGA spent millions on the longest and most exhaustive research project I believe they ever conducted about any single topic pertaining to equipment to come up with a new rule to decrease groove area and increase top edge groove radius in the belief this would lower spin and prevent the "bomb and gougers" from being able to have any advantage over the shorter hitters who kept in on the short grass.

 

But the rule failed miserably. No amount of money or time on behalf of the USGA's research project enabled them to discover a very simple thing - these guys out there have uncanny skills when it comes to controlling the golf ball. Yes the new grooves reduced spin a little from the rough, but the players just compensated in other ways with their skills to still hit the ball on the green from the rough, close enough to make birdies and kick in pars.

 

And as I have said in other threads, all the USGA accomplished with this attempted attack on spin was to make it far more difficult for golf companies and the clubhead production factories to mass produce ironheads and wedges with grooves that could pass the new groove rule conformity inspection process. Long time production factory business friends have shared with me the fact that they doubt 50% of all the irons and wedges coming out of production could ever pass the USGA's groove rule conformity inspection process because the groove radius specs and tolerance is so very difficult to achieve in mass production.

 

So any change in the ball to change spin would not really have any effect on scoring or shot making out there. As the PGA Tour's marketing tagline says - "These guys are GOOD!" The only way they think they can protect the old courses and make pros hit long irons into greens would be to reel back the distance capability of the ball.

[Bad9]

Really.

 

327.9

300

302.6

312.2

300.4

310.7

 

That's the driving distances listed on the PGA for round 4 of the PGA at Quail Hollow in 2017 for the top 5 and ties. Winner at the top. That's short?

 

Edit; these numbers are for the week not the 4th round.

 

On a bunch of holes guys were laying back to 290 specifically because of the Bermuda rough.

 

Maybe so but you said avg distance off the tee was down for the week. 40 of the 75 guys who made the cut(53.3%) were over 300yds for the week. 62 of the 75(82.67%) were over 290. And 3 guys who finished T9 or better(total of 12) averaged below 300 and those 3 were 295.6, 282.4 and 294.1 respectively. Doesn't sound like driving distance was down to me.

 

Edit to fix typos

[Sean2]

Tom, the USGA ruling on grooves was very successful. The vast majority of recreational golfers had trouble spinning the ball as it was...the USGA ruling made it even harder. So yes, they were successful...they just had the wrong target audience. lol

[Bye]

It's interesting that the groove rule keeps coming up. Some might argue it actually helped a lot of guys, especially the higher speed players. It use to be really hard to stop the ball spinning to much on occasion.

[Bad9]

It's interesting that the groove rule keeps coming up. Some might argue it actually helped a lot of guys, especially the higher speed players. It use to be really hard to stop the ball spinning to much on occasion.

 

I think the groove rule keeps coming up because it was a solution to a problem that maybe didn't really exist or at least the nature of it was misunderstood.

[North Butte]

It's interesting that the groove rule keeps coming up. Some might argue it actually helped a lot of guys, especially the higher speed players. It use to be really hard to stop the ball spinning to much on occasion.

 

I think the groove rule keeps coming up because it was a solution to a problem that maybe didn't really exist or at least the nature of it was misunderstood.

 

Well the "problem" such as it was, consisted of a bunch of idiots with their panties in a bunch over the manner in which better players than themselves played the game.

 

Hmmmm, sounds familiar.

[Bad9]

It's interesting that the groove rule keeps coming up. Some might argue it actually helped a lot of guys, especially the higher speed players. It use to be really hard to stop the ball spinning to much on occasion.

 

I think the groove rule keeps coming up because it was a solution to a problem that maybe didn't really exist or at least the nature of it was misunderstood.

 

Well the "problem" such as it was, consisted of a bunch of idiots with their panties in a bunch over the manner in which better players than themselves played the game.

 

Hmmmm, sounds familiar.

 

I think it does surprisingly. :drinks:

[mahonie]

 

 

Tom, I suggested in an earlier post that perhaps balls could be made to have consistent spin profiles in that a ball that has high spin around the green would also then have to have high spin with the driver, same with low spin balls and then a mid-spin ball between the two. This would sort of rule out imposed bifurcation in that you could choose to play the same ball as anyone else, the only limit being your own skill level.

 

In my mind this would help to identify the outstanding ballstrikers as they would still be able to hit the high spin ball long but also straight. Any amount of side spin would cause the ball to curve offline with obviously the high spin balls deviating further. The low spin balls would still be long with less deviation but would lose a certain level of control around the green. Recreational players who ‘need’ distance in their games would not be penalised as they could choose the low spin ball, with the short game taking a slight hit in the feel stakes.

 

To me this approach would have the minimum impact on current clubs, would possibly identify the best pro golfers and would minimise the impact on recreational players with a possible outcome that overall driving distance averages come down. Obviously this would not work if all pro golfers hit the ball that well that they do not put significant amounts of side spin on the ball on long shots? Is this something that you have experience of and can comment on?

 

I don't really perceive that the rulemaking body's or the top players' angst about the ball these days has much of anything to do with spin capability of balls today. I read this as being all about distance. These guys for whatever reasons just do not like the fact that the longest par-4 holes should not be over 500 yards. And they don't like that the 475 yd par-4's have been reduced to being nothing more than a driver/short iron or even wedge when in the past they were always a driver/long iron. Those who are in favor of a ball change want to do it to reduce how far these guys hit it so they can, 1) keep the old classic courses built in the 20th century from being rendered totally obsolete, and 2) so they can still have holes the pros must hit long irons into as a further test of skill, but without having to make those holes be 275 yd par-3's, 540 yd par-4's or 700 yard par-5's.

 

That's my take on it.

 

The spin issue is dead in my mind anyway ever since the complete FAILURE of the USGA's 2010 rule change pertaining to scorelines on clubs of 25* loft and higher.

 

If you remember, the USGA got a burr up their backsides about what the media called "Bomb and gouge". You know, players who "bomb" it 320 into the rough and "gouge" a wedge up to 10 feet and make birdie or kick in pars. They believed if they changed the grooves so the players could not spin the ball nearly as much from the rough, this would "solve the problem."

 

The USGA spent millions on the longest and most exhaustive research project I believe they ever conducted about any single topic pertaining to equipment to come up with a new rule to decrease groove area and increase top edge groove radius in the belief this would lower spin and prevent the "bomb and gougers" from being able to have any advantage over the shorter hitters who kept in on the short grass.

 

But the rule failed miserably. No amount of money or time on behalf of the USGA's research project enabled them to discover a very simple thing - these guys out there have uncanny skills when it comes to controlling the golf ball. Yes the new grooves reduced spin a little from the rough, but the players just compensated in other ways with their skills to still hit the ball on the green from the rough, close enough to make birdies and kick in pars.

 

And as I have said in other threads, all the USGA accomplished with this attempted attack on spin was to make it far more difficult for golf companies and the clubhead production factories to mass produce ironheads and wedges with grooves that could pass the new groove rule conformity inspection process. Long time production factory business friends have shared with me the fact that they doubt 50% of all the irons and wedges coming out of production could ever pass the USGA's groove rule conformity inspection process because the groove radius specs and tolerance is so very difficult to achieve in mass production.

 

So any change in the ball to change spin would not really have any effect on scoring or shot making out there. As the PGA Tour's marketing tagline says - "These guys are GOOD!" The only way they think they can protect the old courses and make pros hit long irons into greens would be to reel back the distance capability of the ball.

 

Again thank you for your response. I can’t think of a ball sport where technology has had such an impact on the performance of the ball as golf...I’m guessing because most other ball sports are more ‘linear’ and have less extremes of power and finesse.

 

I can remember reading an article at the time of the groove ruling stating that the top players who would be most affected would be Harrington and Woods as they were the wildest off the tee and benefitted the most from the old square groove ‘high spin’ wedges out of the rough, particularly in Majors where the rough was typically heavier. As Paddy and Tiger had won a bunch of Majors at around that time, I think the journalist was trying to sensationalise the story but neither has won a Major since, so who knows.

 

I can relate to the club production/groove rule issue. I was speaking to a short game specialist who had designed a wedge made from an extremely hard alloy with the aim of keeping the edges of the grooves as sharp as the specification allowed for the lifetime of the club. He showed me a clubhead hanging from a piece of string which, when he hit it with a rod of metal, rang as pure as a bell. In testing the prototype was performing as well as any wedge on the market with no discernible wear. He told me of the trials and tribulations he was having with the R & A in getting approval and I suspect that he has given up as they have not been made available as far as I am aware.

[bladehunter]

NEW2Golf-

 

 

newsflash... we ALL have selfish agendas.... come on.... that at least cannot be argued with a straight face

 

In many cases you're correct, but in this case the groups of people I called out have the agenda, the rest of us are trying to prevent the execution of their agenda. If you consider maintaining status quo an agenda, then I won't argue the point with you.

 

Sunshine’s out. Ups just dropped off a new toy. I’m eating a ham samich and enjoying some spin killing aldila goodness ! I’ll leave you fellows to it !

[Bad9]

Mahonie,

 

Has there been as much angst in GB about the low scores being shot at the various Open venues as there seems to be here in NA? From this side of the pond the R&A seems far less perturbed at a low score being shot at one of their rota(when conditions are benign) than the USGA is.

[Tyler1putt]

Mahonie,

 

Has there been as much angst in GB about the low scores being shot at the various Open venues as there seems to be here in NA? From this side of the pond the R&A seems far less perturbed at a low score being shot at one of their rota(when conditions are benign) than the USGA is.

 

There is but because the defence of all these courses is the wind without it scores used to be low anyway.

 

There is more angst surrounding the inland courses the true greats Sunningdale Woburn and other very good tracks Walton Heath etc are being smashed and are not seen as long enough to hold amateur events let alone pro events

[TollBros]

I top out 285. I'm 48 and took up the game seriously about 5 years ago. However my point was not that crushing drives is childish but rather a game of crushed drivers and wedges is, IF that's all it is...or all it becomes.

 

I'm personally convinced that tomorrow's game will not properly balance course management, shot making, precision and strength/speed the way the game has in the past through a variety of equipment changes. Up until Tiger, we saw incredible displays of all facets of the game including crushed drives and crushed wedges from the rough. He was not one dimensional and my fear is that this game will end up becoming a long driving contest with equipment that is focused on not only making that possible, but easier.

 

I will say for the sake of argument that I am longer than most off the tee. I grew up in South Florida, but now reside up north for work. I find that these older 75+ year old tree lined courses protect themselves very well. Small greens and angles that really force driver out of my hands a lot on par 4's. Yes I can hit tee shots most cannot, but on most of these courses it doesn't matter much. A well designed golf course can protect itself on most days.

[pinestreetgolf]

I can’t think of a ball sport where technology has had such an impact on the performance of the ball as golf...

 

Tennis.

[Bye]

Mahonie,

 

Has there been as much angst in GB about the low scores being shot at the various Open venues as there seems to be here in NA? From this side of the pond the R&A seems far less perturbed at a low score being shot at one of their rota(when conditions are benign) than the USGA is.

 

There is but because the defence of all these courses is the wind without it scores used to be low anyway.

 

There is more angst surrounding the inland courses the true greats Sunningdale Woburn and other very good tracks Walton Heath etc are being smashed and are not seen as long enough to hold amateur events let alone pro events

 

The greens normally run at around 10 on the stimp, anything more and it can become unplayable. IT also depends a lot on the weather in the lead up, Last year they were panicking because the was virtually no rough 2 weeks before the tournament started.

 

The have tried really hard before, Carnoustie 1999 springs to mind. Cut at +12 and a level par winning score. Probably one of the least interesting years baring the final hole of regulation play.

[mahonie]

Mahonie,

 

Has there been as much angst in GB about the low scores being shot at the various Open venues as there seems to be here in NA? From this side of the pond the R&A seems far less perturbed at a low score being shot at one of their rota(when conditions are benign) than the USGA is.

 

There is but because the defence of all these courses is the wind without it scores used to be low anyway.

 

There is more angst surrounding the inland courses the true greats Sunningdale Woburn and other very good tracks Walton Heath etc are being smashed and are not seen as long enough to hold amateur events let alone pro events

 

Ross Fisher shot 61 at St Andrews in the Dunhill Links last October so if the wind is down they can be easy. If the wind blows and it rains, the pros can be shooting in the 80s like Tiger at Muirfield. What people may not be aware of is that St Andrews is lengthened by about 600 yards for pro tournaments from its ‘standard’ set-up. The 17th tee has been moved back 35 yards and is actually outside of the course boundary on a driving range!

 

@Tyler1putt, you are spot on with regard to Sunningdale, Woburn and other similar courses. They become obsolete because there is no space to expand them. A course near to me that had been around for over a hundred years and was reminiscent of Woburn, suffered the same fate and is now a housing development.

[mahonie]

I can’t think of a ball sport where technology has had such an impact on the performance of the ball as golf...

 

Tennis.

 

I didn’t like to mention tennis as all the Major tournaments use their own ‘sponsored’ balls each with their own foibles.

 

I didn’t know that men and women used different balls though. Apparently, Andy Rodrick was serving the women’s ball for the US Open at 175mph!!

[rawdog]

I can’t think of a ball sport where technology has had such an impact on the performance of the ball as golf...

 

Tennis.

 

I didn’t like to mention tennis as all the Major tournaments use their own ‘sponsored’ balls each with their own foibles.

 

I didn’t know that men and women used different balls though. Apparently, Andy Rodrick was serving the women’s ball for the US Open at 175mph!!

 

Only on the biggest stage of the most popular sport in the world, but... whatever.

 

Physicists Say New World Cup Soccer Ball Design Has Big Impact

 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140529-world-cup-soccer-brazuca-physics-jabulani-sports/

____

 

"What's most relevant in a ball's movement is drag, a force that makes it dip and curve in unexpected ways. The smoother the ball, the greater the drag at higher speeds—and with fewer panels that are glued rather than stitched together, the World Cup balls have been getting increasingly smoother.

 

Which is why this year the Brazuca ball is covered in little nubs—an attempt to cut down on the so-called knuckling effect, which causes the ball to move unpredictably through the air like a knuckleball in baseball.

 

In the wind tunnel, Hong found, the direction in which the ball is pointed, and thereby the direction in which the panels are oriented, changes the drag. This was a problem for the 8-panel Jabulani ball and the 14-panel Teamgeist ball, each of which traveled more unpredictably than a regular soccer ball, curving more or less depending on which way it was oriented."

[radiman]

I can’t think of a ball sport where technology has had such an impact on the performance of the ball as golf...

 

Tennis.

 

I didn’t like to mention tennis as all the Major tournaments use their own ‘sponsored’ balls each with their own foibles.

 

I didn’t know that men and women used different balls though. Apparently, Andy Rodrick was serving the women’s ball for the US Open at 175mph!!

 

Only on the biggest stage of the most popular sport in the world, but... whatever.

 

Physicists Say New World Cup Soccer Ball Design Has Big Impact

 

https://news.nationa...abulani-sports/

____

 

"What's most relevant in a ball's movement is drag, a force that makes it dip and curve in unexpected ways. The smoother the ball, the greater the drag at higher speeds—and with fewer panels that are glued rather than stitched together, the World Cup balls have been getting increasingly smoother.

 

Which is why this year the Brazuca ball is covered in little nubs—an attempt to cut down on the so-called knuckling effect, which causes the ball to move unpredictably through the air like a knuckleball in baseball.

 

In the wind tunnel, Hong found, the direction in which the ball is pointed, and thereby the direction in which the panels are oriented, changes the drag. This was a problem for the 8-panel Jabulani ball and the 14-panel Teamgeist ball, each of which traveled more unpredictably than a regular soccer ball, curving more or less depending on which way it was oriented."

 

This is apples and oranges. The only similarity is that they are both a ball. When the ball moves in unexpected ways in soccer, it immediately impacts another player on an opposing team. In golf, hitting the ball further affects the player who hit the shot. It doesn't mean that other players can't do the same if they are physically able.

[mahonie]

I can’t think of a ball sport where technology has had such an impact on the performance of the ball as golf...

 

Tennis.

 

I didn’t like to mention tennis as all the Major tournaments use their own ‘sponsored’ balls each with their own foibles.

 

I didn’t know that men and women used different balls though. Apparently, Andy Rodrick was serving the women’s ball for the US Open at 175mph!!

 

Only on the biggest stage of the most popular sport in the world, but... whatever.

 

Physicists Say New World Cup Soccer Ball Design Has Big Impact

 

https://news.nationa...abulani-sports/

____

 

"What's most relevant in a ball's movement is drag, a force that makes it dip and curve in unexpected ways. The smoother the ball, the greater the drag at higher speeds—and with fewer panels that are glued rather than stitched together, the World Cup balls have been getting increasingly smoother.

 

Which is why this year the Brazuca ball is covered in little nubs—an attempt to cut down on the so-called knuckling effect, which causes the ball to move unpredictably through the air like a knuckleball in baseball.

 

In the wind tunnel, Hong found, the direction in which the ball is pointed, and thereby the direction in which the panels are oriented, changes the drag. This was a problem for the 8-panel Jabulani ball and the 14-panel Teamgeist ball, each of which traveled more unpredictably than a regular soccer ball, curving more or less depending on which way it was oriented."

 

This is apples and oranges. The only similarity is that they are both a ball. When the ball moves in unexpected ways in soccer, it immediately impacts another player on an opposing team. In golf, hitting the ball further affects the player who hit the shot. It doesn't mean that other players can't do the same if they are physically able.

 

English Premiership have trialled a distance ball... ;-)

 

 

[radiman]

English Premiership have trialled a distance ball... ;-)

 

 

I'll admit, I am not a soccer guy. It wasn't very popular in youth sports when I was growing up. But, that is an impressive boot.

[TomWishon]

 

On the Driver point I am happy to be wrong. That means that I literally don't have to feel like I need to checkout new Driver heads every year to feel like I'm keeping up. Yours is the first actual learned opinion stating that that I've read.

 

How far back do you feel like this goes ? As in sweet spot size etc./year or do other parts effect the perceived sweet spot area ? As in launch angle spin etc ?

 

Lastly. What are your thoughts on smaller Driver heads in relation to 460. Why is a 460 head more forgiving overall ? Would you take into effect ability to square at impact into your fitting and forgiving assessment ?

 

Sorry if these are stupid questions. But I really wonder how much of this stuff is real and how much is placebo.

 

Why is a 460cc driver more forgiving? Because basically the larger the head size, the higher the MOI. MOI controls how much the head twists when you hit a shot off center. Less twist (higher MOI) means less energy loss in the head from an off center hit which means more distance. MOI is controlled by how much weight can be put as far as possible from the center of gravity of the head. A big size driver has more weight farther from the CG than does a small size driver. This is why you will never find a "Thriver" or a fwy wood or a sub 400cc driver that will achieve the off center hit performance of a 460cc driver. But with drivers of 420-430-440cc you get close enough with a high enough MOI that the difference between it and a 460cc is negligible.

 

Adding to this is the face design. Well engineered variable thickness faces (VTF) will increase the flexing of the face for an off center hit, regardless of how much the head might twist in response to an off center hit. More face flexing means the COR at any point of impact on the face is higher. Higher COR means more distance. So a really good VTF on a medium size head with a medium high MOI will actually bring about better off center hit performance than will a larger head with a super high MOI because increasing face flexing reduces energy loss in the ball better than a high MOI head reduces energy loss in the head.

 

That's why a well designed 460cc driver head can always beat a much smaller size head for off center hit forgiveness.

 

Big driver heads up to 460cc are no more difficult for the golfer to rotate back to square and small wood sizes are not easier to rotate back to square. While the measured difference in the other MOI that is at play here is certainly higher in the big head ( we're now talking about a different MOI than the one that controls head twisting from an off center hit - the MOI about the rotation of the hosel during the swing) , this MOI difference has to be HUGE before it starts to affect the golfer's ability to rotate the clubhead back around to square. A driver head would have to be in the area of 800+cc with most of that size increase being in the heel to toe size of the head to push the CG much farther out away from the hosel before this MOI begins to mess with your ability to square the face.

 

And how long ago did we basically hit the wall for significant driver head design technology achievements? Much of that depends on what we define to be significant achievements in changing shot performance. To a very good ball striker with a higher clubhead speed, getting a driver with a 20g moving weight that can shift heel to toe or front to back can bring about a visible change in shot shape. But to an average player (10-25 index) with an average clubhead speed of 85-90mph or lower (of which there are tens of millions), sliding weights are a waste of time and money and won't change a thing. So much of what is being touted as new technology in driver design over the past ten years has been like this - features that only a small segment of the total golfer population can experience a visible change in performance.

 

So I suppose that one has to first establish just what they define or perceive to be "New Significant Clubhead Technology." To me, that means a new feature which can be perceived or visibly seen and experienced in the form of a change in shot performance BY ALL GOLFERS OR THE VAST MAJORITY OF GOLFERS REGARDLESS OF SKILL LEVEL.

 

If a change in a head model happens to create a visible performance change to a small segment of players, then no, I don't recognize that as a new significant clubhead technology. I see something like that more as a FITTING TECHNOLOGY. In fitting technology, the whole point is that no single change in a golf club is supposed to change performance for all golfers. Fitting technology identifies the changes in club specs/club design features which offer performance changes for DIFFERENT SWING CHARACTERISTICS and how much the changes can do that. That's why the best fitters are those who understand both golfers and golf clubs - what swing characteristics point to which spec changes in golf clubs as being able to improve performance for each different golfer and by how much. And that is why becoming a GOOD fitter takes a long time because learning all these relationships between the swing and the specs doesn't come overnight.

 

New SIGNIFICANT clubhead technology features offer performance changes for the vast majority of golfers regardless of what their swing characteristics are. That's the part I see as done and over with.

 

Let me name a few so you have some perspective in this. And forgive me, I am sure I will forget a few because this is extemporaneous. To be more thorough I would have to take some time to think about everything in golf club development over the course of the history of the game. But this'll get the point across.

 

Clubhead technology features I see as significant include,

 

1) Cavity back over muscleback blade ironheads in the 1960s. The cavity back brought an automatic increase in MOI which improved off center hit ball speed for ALL GOLFERS. Yes the higher speed players saw a more visible difference in off center hit distance but even slower swingers experienced some.

 

2) Titanium as a clubface material in the early 1990s. This allowed designers to first learn what COR was and to increase the smash factor for ALL GOLFERS for more distance. (no we designers had no clue about COR before 1992 !!!) Yes it was more distance for higher clubhead speeds but all golfers got some distance increase from a high COR face over their previous lower COR face clubs.

 

3) Heel Toe weighted putter heads in the 1960s. Very much related to cavity back irons as a means to increase putter head MOI which improved off center hit putt distance for ALL GOLFERS. Especially if the previous putter was a Acushnet Bull's Eye !!

 

4) 2-piece investment cast steel woodhead construction in the 1970s. This brought much higher MOI capability to woodheads to improve off center hit ball speed for ALL GOLFERS. Again more for high speed swingers but it was there for all to have a visible experience.

 

5) The adjustable hosel sleeve for woods in 1995. (yes 1995) While this could be perceived at first by some to be a fitting technology, it is possible to use these to allow a change in loft (or change face angle or lie) in the same clubhead to be accomplished for a very large segment of golfers. But if the golfer who wanted the loft change also needed a face angle change to reduce a slice or hook tendency, that guy was out of luck with the adjustable hosel driver. And yes I mean the R1 too because the specs stated on the face angle dial were not what the club ended up with. Believe me, I wrote a whole report on this that prompted a flood of hate mail from TM fans.

 

6) Milled face wedges in the 1980s. The vast majority of backspin capability in a clubhead comes from the roughness of the face between the grooves, not the grooves themselves. Milling the face greatly increases face friction with the ball to increase spin for ALL GOLFERS. Yes again more for higher speed players, but even slow swingers got more spin from a milled face vs non milled.

 

7) Variable thickness face construction in the 1990s. Far better than a high MOI for improving off center hit ball speed for ALL GOLFERS because it directly increases the COR for off center areas of the face. Again, more clubhead speed, more off center distance. But it works for all.

 

8) Creating a high COR clubface from a steel alloy to enable fwy woods, hybrids, irons to be designed with as high of a COR as a titanium driver. Once again this increase of COR will increase smash factor and distance for ALL golfers. Titanium could have been used to make high COR fwys, hybrids and irons but its far higher cost has been proven over the past 20+ yrs to make it a non-starter for being able to achieve commercial success in these other clubhead areas.

 

9) Bounce Sole Angle and Sole Width on a Sand Wedge. Helps to make learning proper sand play easier for the majority of golfers by helping to reduce the depth of entry of the clubhead into the sand to help keep the clubhead moving through the sand. This one does not work for ALL golfers though but does work for a very large percentage. Those with a more steep angle of attack "de-bounce" the sole so to speak and still have problems getting the ball out of the sand.

 

Clubhead design elements I DO NOT see as a significant clubhead technology include -

 

1) Moving weights on driver/wood heads. Moving a weight of limited mass forward to back, or toe to heel, will change the center of gravity slightly for any head on which this feature is included. But it does not work to change performance for even close to a majority of golfers. It only works for those golfers who either have a late to very late release (forward to back movement) or who have a higher than average clubhead speed WITH the ability to hit the ball dead on center a very high percentage of the time (heel to toe movement). Also, due to limitations posed by required head weights, the actual weight of a moving weight is limited. Such sliding weights would need to be much heavier to enable this technology to be visibly experienced for the vast majority of golfers. Hence only a small segment of golfers can visibly experience the performance change of a moving weight on a clubhead.

 

2) Lowering or Raising the CG in a clubhead. First I must qualify this. IF extraordinarily tall or shallow face clubheads could be popular enough with golfers to allow such head models to be commercially successful, vertical CG could be a more significant clubhead technology for changing shot performance. But if golfers patently reject a clubhead model for reasons of aesthetic preference, the technology can't have its chance to change performance for all golfers. Therefore, within the acceptable vertical size range of clubheads, how much the vertical CG can be changed in a head design is very limited. From this, the number of golfers who truly can experience a change in shot performance from a change in the vertical CG is quite small. The higher the clubhead speed, the more chance there is for a significant change in vertical CG to result in a visible change in shot performance. Yet who is it that needs the height increase of a lower CG? Slower swing speed players predominantly. The only exception to this are the very shallow face fairway woods. Those models can be considered more of a significant clubhead design technology because they do visibly increase shot height for a pretty large segment of golfers. Low CG irons not so much because the CG cannot be low enough to make a difference, given the accepted range of iron head size and shape. In other words, if tons of golfers could come to love the extreme low profile of a model similar to the old Browning 440 irons, then vertical CG in an iron could jump up to be a significant clubhead technology.

 

3) Aerodynamic protrusions on clubheads to increase clubhead speed. Sorry, the wind tunnel tests with smoke flowing smoothly over the surface of the head is not an appropriate test to confirm the claims being made on behalf of these clubhead models. In the golf swing, the head is very rarely in this face forward position coming into impact for more than 6" before impact. The head is rotating with other surfaces, mainly the heel side of the head, moving forward through the air for 98%+ of the downswing during acceleration. Also, once the golfer releases the wrist-hinge angle, the clubhead now begins to lose acceleration anyway from a loss of energy in the arms. Perhaps for former tour player Calvin Peete who was supposedly measured to have the clubface square to the ball 12" before impact, but not for the rest of us.

 

4) Graphite Crown on Titanium Driver Heads. Yes, no question removing 35g of titanium and replacing it with 17g of carbon fiber composite gives you some additional mass to put somewhere else on the head to try to change performance. But where's that additional 18g going to go to change performance? On the sole to lower the CG to hit it higher. Sorry but the ball is on a tee peg so that controls how low the CG of the head is to the ball FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF GOLFERS. Around the perimeter to increase MOI to improve off center hit ball speed? Sorry but 17g added all the way around the outer edges of a 460cc titanium driver head won't increase the MOI enough for the vast majority of golfers to notice anything different when they hit the ball off center. Looks good, but doesn't change performance for all golfers or a majority of golfers.

 

5) Tungsten weights on clubheads to change CG or MOI. As long as the body of the vast majority of clubheads are made from alloys of steel, it will be too difficult to attach enough weight in the form of tungsten or any other high density alloy to make that much more of a difference in the CG or MOI of the head for more than a small segment of players to experience a significant change in performance. With titanium drivers, you will never be able to attach enough tungsten to achieve a significant performance change. With almost all Ti drivers being close to the limit for size/volume and with that size/volume already pushing the weight of driver heads close to their assembly limits, there could never be enough discretionary mass left over to be able to attach enough tungsten to be able to change CG or MOI enough to make a real performance difference. Only if the body of non driver clubheads were made from a suitable low density material could enough tungsten be attached to the head to make a perceptible difference in performance. And to do that would push the price of golf clubs far higher than at present, which would drastically limit their commercial popularity.

 

6) Slot Technology in Clubheads. This works a little better in irons than in woods, but in no way can this reach what well engineered thin face designs can do to ball speed, coupled then with variable thickness faces to affect an improvement in face flexing, and an improvement in face flexing that is CONSISTENT OVER THE DIFFERENT SURFACES OF THE FACE. That's key. Really key. To be significant for performance, the face needs to be able to flex inward consistently for each off center area of the face. For example, the face should flex inward the same for any area that is the same distance from the center of the face. 1" off center cannot flex inward as much as 1/2" off center because the geometry of the clubface cannot allow that. But good face design says the face flexing for 1/2" toward the heel and 1/2" toward the toe should be as close to the same as possible to offer consistent performance. Or face flexing for 1" toward the heel and 1" toward the toe should be as close to the same as possible to offer consistent performance.

 

Not improving face flexing for the lower third of a face and not at all for the upper third or heel or toe areas. If slots on woodheads even affect face flexing of which I am doubtful, why would you just put the slot only on the sole? Or on the sole and top but not all the way to the heel and toe areas? Or even do a slot at all when all you have to do to improve face flexing is use the right thin-ness of the right alloy for the WHOLE face. And then make the face symmetrically variable thickness to increase off center face flexing CONSISTENTLY?

 

For irons, hey, I am just glad I wasn't the guy at Taylor Made who convinced the high ups that actual slots in the face itself filled with a polymer were going to be plenty durable. Uhhh, R I G H T. That was just a durability disaster waiting to happen. Believe me, a club designer's veteran status can only be earned by how many fires he has to put out from bad ideas he had !!! Phew!

 

OK, I am sure I missed some advancements in clubhead technology in my lists of significant and less significant clubhead design teatures. Those of you interested enough in this topic to have read this far are welcome to submit your nominations for what you feel to be significant or insignificant clubhead technology features and I will be glad to comment if I have the chance to see the comments.

 

Sick a fork in me cuz I am done for now. . . . . .

[bladehunter]

Thank you again Tom.

 

Excellent read as usual. We truly are blessed that you donate your time to post here. I have a bit of perspective on advertising now that I didn’t. As pertains to the latest and greatest. I’m goin to go back and read that again ..... I’m certain I missed something in all that goldmine of knowledge. Seriously great post !

[radiman]

Great write-up Tom. Love when you share your insider knowledge. What are your thoughts on jailbreak? My Epic seems to be pretty forgiving across the face. But, is that attributed to the jailbreak? Or is it smoke and mirrors like some of the other concepts you mentioned?